What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

**Official Watchmen HBO Series** (1 Viewer)

Zow said:
Enjoyed tonight’s episode. I like what they did with HJ. 
Click to expand...
Then you may also enjoy this interview with the writer of the episode.

Only thing I found disappointing was this comment from the article: 

In thinking about this character, and thinking about this episode, I’d been thinking about how ridiculous the idea of Batman is — the idea of a straight, white, billionaire man not being able to get justice through traditional means and needing to put on a costume. That’s absurd, because rich, straight, white men will get justice however they want it. They can buy courts, they can buy police forces, they can buy presidencies. The idea that a billionaire white man is going to be stuck seeking justice on the street because he can’t obtain it elsewhere is absurd. So Captain Metropolis is a good stand-in for Batman here.
Click to expand...
Not saying being all those things doesn't help at times, but a statement like this to me does more to separate folks than bring them together.

For the record, I think using the riots in Tulsa was a great idea and calls attention to a lesser talked about part of our nation's history, and Having Hooded Justice come out of this context makes perfect sense. 

On one hand, I think it's great to recognize and include some diversity in the 'heroes', but on the other, I think it's going to be a fine line to walk not in not making everything about HJ and how everything and everyone is biased against him because of his race.  As I read more about Watchmen and the world they inhabit, I keep seeing reminders, specifically from interviews with Alan Moore, that we're not supposed to like these characters, but with HJ, there's the risk of making his tale more relate-able for readers than the others and give more legitimacy to his actions than characters like Rorschach, The Comedian and Ozymandias.  It seems that Moore's original point is that no one should want to emulate any of these characters, but by making HJ more 'noble' than any other 'hero' character so far, in that his character's birth comes from more unjust actions than any of the others and so far his actions can be made more justifiable than any other superhero in the story, they are setting him up to be very much a real hero that others should emulate, which is supposed to be the exact opposite of Moore's intent. They all should serve the same cautionary purpose that was laid out in the original story; anything other than that is an attempt to support a deliberately slanted narrative beyond the scope of the original. I have some hope that it will still turn out that he's seen as much of a flawed character as the others by the end of the story, and he has done at least one thing that could be evidence of that, but we'll see.  

And don't get me wrong; I'm very much enjoying what they've done so far and hold off 'final' judgement until the entire arc is complete.

 
Charlie Steiner said:
Then you may also enjoy this interview with the writer of the episode.

Only thing I found disappointing was this comment from the article: 

Not saying being all those things doesn't help at times, but a statement like this to me does more to separate folks than bring them together.

For the record, I think using the riots in Tulsa was a great idea and calls attention to a lesser talked about part of our nation's history, and Having Hooded Justice come out of this context makes perfect sense. 

On one hand, I think it's great to recognize and include some diversity in the 'heroes', but on the other, I think it's going to be a fine line to walk not in not making everything about HJ and how everything and everyone is biased against him because of his race.  As I read more about Watchmen and the world they inhabit, I keep seeing reminders, specifically from interviews with Alan Moore, that we're not supposed to like these characters, but with HJ, there's the risk of making his tale more relate-able for readers than the others and give more legitimacy to his actions than characters like Rorschach, The Comedian and Ozymandias.  It seems that Moore's original point is that no one should want to emulate any of these characters, but by making HJ more 'noble' than any other 'hero' character so far, in that his character's birth comes from more unjust actions than any of the others and so far his actions can be made more justifiable than any other superhero in the story, they are setting him up to be very much a real hero that others should emulate, which is supposed to be the exact opposite of Moore's intent. They all should serve the same cautionary purpose that was laid out in the original story; anything other than that is an attempt to support a deliberately slanted narrative beyond the scope of the original. I have some hope that it will still turn out that he's seen as much of a flawed character as the others by the end of the story, and he has done at least one thing that could be evidence of that, but we'll see.  

And don't get me wrong; I'm very much enjoying what they've done so far and hold off 'final' judgement until the entire arc is complete.
Click to expand...
I get this. My perspective though comes from having never read the graphic novel and having only watched the movie several years ago. I guess I don't share the loyalty to the original author. 

I do like that Hooded Justice's actions and rage lost him his family. 

 
Zow said:
I get this. My perspective though comes from having never read the graphic novel and having only watched the movie several years ago. I guess I don't share the loyalty to the original author. 

I do like that Hooded Justice's actions and rage lost him his family. 
Click to expand...
I've only recently started digging deeper into the whole Watchmen 'phenomenon', and TBH I liked some of the original characters and learned later that this runs counter to the author's claims as to what he wanted, which is confusing to say the least,  but I did see the story in a different light. For example, I was crestfallen when I read that Rorschach is supposedly more racist than is mentioned in the movie, which was also my first exposure. To me, the 'theme' the author was driving at was that as a 'deconstruction' of the superhero genre, we're not supposed to like any of these characters.  I don't consider myself 'loyal' to the author, but I think I get what he was trying to, more than I did when I first saw the movie, and was only trying to point out from a storytelling and not social commentary perspective that it's going to be tricky keeping HJ in that vein without making his story resonate more justifiably than the other characters.

Losing his family and committing murder based on the sins of one's ancestors are both signs of thought-provoking writing, to be sure, but hopefully it's more open-ended than I expect.

 
Leeroy Jenkins said:
Capella said:
Excellent episode. Little surprised we didn’t even see a glance at the original nite owl though. 
Click to expand...
I thought he was later; not during Hooded Justice’s time. 
Click to expand...
The teaser for episode 7 included some Vietnam-era scenes which would bring Nite Owl and The Comedian into play.

 
Capella said:
I bought the book the other day and am 90% through it in a few days. Snappy, really good read. Gets a little scattered at times (I don’t care for the kid reading his novel at the newspaper stands, it’s too convoluted) but I would recommend it to anybody watching this who wants to dive in. 
Click to expand...
The funny thing is, I own it. But I read it so long ago that I dont remember any of it

But I have that problem. I own the movie as well and dont remember that either

But loving the show like everyone else

 
Charlie Steiner said:
I've only recently started digging deeper into the whole Watchmen 'phenomenon', and TBH I liked some of the original characters and learned later that this runs counter to the author's claims as to what he wanted, which is confusing to say the least,  but I did see the story in a different light. For example, I was crestfallen when I read that Rorschach is supposedly more racist than is mentioned in the movie, which was also my first exposure. To me, the 'theme' the author was driving at was that as a 'deconstruction' of the superhero genre, we're not supposed to like any of these characters.  I don't consider myself 'loyal' to the author, but I think I get what he was trying to, more than I did when I first saw the movie, and was only trying to point out from a storytelling and not social commentary perspective that it's going to be tricky keeping HJ in that vein without making his story resonate more justifiably than the other characters.

Losing his family and committing murder based on the sins of one's ancestors are both signs of thought-provoking writing, to be sure, but hopefully it's more open-ended than I expect.
Click to expand...
It's been awhile since i read the graphic novel, but I don't remember Rorschach having any particularly racist tendencies. He definitely was a homophobe.

 
dickey moe said:
It's been awhile since i read the graphic novel, but I don't remember Rorschach having any particularly racist tendencies. He definitely was a homophobe.
Click to expand...
I think the main premise that he's a racist is that the newspaper he submitted his journal to in the original story was a far-right news organization and that he was a loyal reader of it. Also, after a very little digging, I found this article on reddit, which contains the following quote accredited to Moore himself about the character:

 Alan Moore based Rorschach on Steve Ditko's "The Question" and "Mr. A" in large part to make fun of his objectivist Ayn Rand worldview

CBA: When you read some of Ditko's diatribes in "The Question" and in some issues of Blue Beetle, did you read it with bemusement or disgust?

Alan: Well...

CBA: A mix of both?

Alan: [Stuff about loving the art hating the artist] I learned pretty quickly about the sources of Steve Ditko's ideas, and I realized very early on that he was very fond of the writing of Ayn Rand.

CBA: Did you explore her philosophy?

Alan: I had to look at The Fountainhead. I have to say I found Ayn Rand's philosophy laughable. It was a "white supremacist dreams of the master race," burnt in an early-20th century form.

CBA: Just to map this out: The prototype for Rorshach was The Question, right?

Alan: The Question was Rorschach, yep.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure who CBA is in this article, and I will concede that quoting a reddit article quoting a source I  can't identify is a little sketchy, but with the recent surge in other articles that directly refer to Moore saying this also  leads me to believe it's accurate; I picked this because it's a pretty quick summary and it's written instead of spoken.  Either way, I'm pretty sure on the many videos containing interviews with Moore on youtube, there will be one of him saying  pretty much this same thing.  Anyway, if you agree with his chain of reasoning, i.e. premise 1: Rorschach is based on a character with objectivist philosophical leanings. Premise 2: Objectivism is a racist philosophy. Conclusion: Rorschach is a racist.   I always took him as an equal opportunity hater of anyone that didn't fit his sense of right and wrong, but apparently that is incorrect.  I was trying to figure out if all this was just HBO's way of drumming up more talk about the show, but when the author himself says a character he created is supposed to be racist, I have to concede.  Personally, I don't think objectivism in and of itself is a 'racist' philosophy, but critics like to label Rand a racist, so I stay away from those type of discussions in general.

The funny thing is, because his racism isn't obvious in the movie or as far as I can tell the original story, the author is guilty of "white-washing" the character, something which was highlighted in the Minutemen 'show within a show' on this series.

 
To each his own I guess. I've read The Fountainhead and interpreted no such racist undertones.

It was always obvious to me that in Watchmen, while Rorschach was supposed to be an obvious rightwing nutjob, Moore chose not to make him an overt racist. Maybe if he had, Rorschach would have been a more unsympathetic character. With Rorschach, it was purely a matter of "right and wrong", dictated on his terms.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dickey moe said:
To each his own I guess. I've read The Fountainhead and interpreted no such racist undertones.

It was always obvious to me that in Watchmen, while Rorschach was supposed to be an obvious rightwing nutjob, Moore chose not to make him an obvert racist. Maybe if he had, Rorschach would have been a more unsympathetic character. With Rorschach, it was purely a matter of "right and wrong", dictated on his terms.
Click to expand...
Rand was fundamentally racist.

 
-fish- said:
Rand was fundamentally racist.
Click to expand...
But, is Objectivism?  Honest question.

In my younger days, I read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and Anthem; I didn't delve into Objectivism very deeply, so I don't consider myself an expert on it or Rand by any stretch. However,  I didn't see any racism per se in the stories either, and to me, one of the cornerstones of Objectivism, 'A=A', seems pretty neutral in terms of race and gender.  I think where Rand starts to lose people is with the 'selfish' nature of her writings, in that her 'best' characters are the ones with 'selfish' motivations.  As for her social commentary, it seems to lack depth and only goes by her personal valuation of other races/cultures, which to me is nothing more than personal, subjective opinion. To me, she's kind of like Karl Marx writing Das Kaptial while being supported by the type of rich patrons he railed against in his book; ignoring the realities of their life while writing about something that sounds better in theory than how it could work in reality.

I always gave her some latitude as she came out of the Russian Revolution and her writings always seemed like more of a response to that first before then turning on the concept of social responsibility.

 
Charlie Steiner said:
But, is Objectivism?  Honest question.

In my younger days, I read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and Anthem; I didn't delve into Objectivism very deeply, so I don't consider myself an expert on it or Rand by any stretch. However,  I didn't see any racism per se in the stories either, and to me, one of the cornerstones of Objectivism, 'A=A', seems pretty neutral in terms of race and gender.  I think where Rand starts to lose people is with the 'selfish' nature of her writings, in that her 'best' characters are the ones with 'selfish' motivations.  As for her social commentary, it seems to lack depth and only goes by her personal valuation of other races/cultures, which to me is nothing more than personal, subjective opinion. To me, she's kind of like Karl Marx writing Das Kaptial while being supported by the type of rich patrons he railed against in his book; ignoring the realities of their life while writing about something that sounds better in theory than how it could work in reality.

I always gave her some latitude as she came out of the Russian Revolution and her writings always seemed like more of a response to that first before then turning on the concept of social responsibility.
Click to expand...
Yes, objectivism is also inherently racist.  

 
Herb said:
Sepinwall recap

What an absolutely spectacular episode.  Sepinwall does a typically thorough job deconstructing it here, too.
Click to expand...
Just watched it last night.  Easily my favorite episode thus far.  Not only the story but the b&w/film noir splashed with color style ala Schindlers List or Sin City was  :thumbup:    

 
Watched all 6 episodes yesterday. Have the graphic novel on the way from Amazon (maybe watch the movie after that?).  The whole thing is shot beautifully and Irons is putting on a clinic.

It also amazes me just how good HBO is at churning out top quality content.

 
The writing on this show is incredible. Great reveal. I figured it out 2 minutes before they revealed it lol

 
shadyridr said:
Cal was Dr Manhattan
Click to expand...
Yes, got that... the whole small ring in the head allowing DM to "live?" there, without Cal the human being aware as he lived his own life, and seemingly DM not being aware of anything at all, sort of lost me. Seemed like a hibernation that would not require incubation within a human, or provide any "in touch with humanity" benefit to DM. I'm sure it will be explained.     

 
I've heard this is good.

I have no idea what it's about or who's in it. I haven't seen the movie or read the book or perused the comic or watched the original series that this is a reboot of. (I don't know which of those things exist.)

It's been a while since I've watched a TV show, but I'm about to start in on this because why not?

 
I see the viewership numbers for this are not quite what HBO had been hoping for.  They're not bad, but they're not great.  Seems like an expensive show.  I wonder if HBO will find a way to wrap it up quickly or figure out a way to cut costs to keep it going.  

 
TheIronSheik said:
I see the viewership numbers for this are not quite what HBO had been hoping for.  They're not bad, but they're not great.  Seems like an expensive show.  I wonder if HBO will find a way to wrap it up quickly or figure out a way to cut costs to keep it going.  
Click to expand...
I am surprised and bummed, if that's the case. this show is excellent, and I'd like for them to make multiple seasons. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Okay, I'm about five minutes into it and I had to pause to google "1921 Tulsa" and ... this seems like a big deal that I'd never heard of. Huh. I thought I was decent at American history.
Click to expand...
Me too. It is a testament to Lindelof and the show that they have educated millions of Americans about a dark episode in their nation's history and woven it into both detailed fictional source material and a entirely fresh work of fiction derived from that source material. And it's linked all three of those things seamlessly- I have yet to hear a serious complaint about continuity from any fans of the graphic novel (admittedly I've only looked here and on twitter, but I assume if there were serious complaints I'd know about it). An impressive accomplishment made even more impressive by the fact that it's riveting simply as a stand-alone show.

I'm waiting to see how this lands in the final two episodes, but so far this is the best thing I have seen in a long, long time.

 
TheIronSheik said:
I see the viewership numbers for this are not quite what HBO had been hoping for.  They're not bad, but they're not great.  Seems like an expensive show.  I wonder if HBO will find a way to wrap it up quickly or figure out a way to cut costs to keep it going.  
Click to expand...
I think it's a tough watch. My wife, who likes most HBO things, checked out after the babies out of the water scene. 

It's also a very complex story where the characters' motivations are not immediately apparent. In other words, aside from Sister Knight you're not really sure who you're rooting for. I think that turns some people off. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
6K
El Floppo
El Floppo
(HULK)
Dave Berry's Year in Review
Replies
2
Views
781
Joe Summer
J
T
Travdogg's 3 round mock draft
2
Replies
76
Views
2K
Deamon
Deamon

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top